Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-xrnlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:02:30.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Home Market and the Artisans in Colonial India: A Study of Brass-ware

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Tirthankar Roy
Tirthankar Roy
Affiliation:
Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Bombay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Studies on Indian artisans in the recent times have tended to be guided by the notion of a world market which, it is believed, drove them towards obsolescence through changing tastes or productivity. This framework, however, is not without problems. First, the presence of older industries in modern India, or their long continuance, tends to be seen in terms of ‘survivals’ or ‘revivals’, which terms deny them any inherent dynamics. On the other hand, the impression that many of them ‘survive’ today in strikingly modernized forms, utilizing production and marketing institutions vastly different from those that prevailed a hundred years ago, would demand of historians an account of how old industries evolve, and become integrated into the rest of the economy. Secondly, the crux of the world market story is the economy's opening up to trade. That foreign trade had a critical impact on crafts such as textiles, partially decimated by imports, or leather, where trade commercialized an erstwhile custom-bound exchange, is indisputable. But there are other notable examples where the effect of trade was benign, minor, or indirect, where artisans remained producers of a mass consumable; and where neither did they face significant competition from imported goods, nor were reduced to fodder for metropolitan industrialization. Yet they changed profoundly. In a way, their history reflects not the play of a dominant exogenous process, but the totality of the economy's structural change. Crafts history does not yet provide us with prototypes of this endogenous transformation.

Type
Articles
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , May 1996 , pp. 357 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Cloth, the Artisans, and the World Economy’, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, 04 1993;Google ScholarRoy, T., Artisans and Industrialization. Indian Weaving in the Twentieth Century (Delhi: 1993);Google Scholar and Roy, T., ‘Foreign Trade and the Artisans in Colonial India. A Study of Leather’, Indian Economic and Social History Review, 10–12 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For a remarkable example of survial, All India Handicrafts Board, Report on Cast Metal Industry in Dariapur (New Delhi, 1964).Google Scholar See also the Anthropological Survey of India's monograph by Mukherjee, Meera, Metalcraftsmen in India (Calcutta, 1978).Google ScholarPubMed The connection of brass-ware with smelting, which dissolved later on, is indicated in the following, ‘in the hilly districts of western Bengal, metal artisans, or at least certain sections of them, seem to have gradually evolved out of the aboriginal…iron-smelters’, Mukharji, T. N., A Monograph on the Brass, Bronze and Copper Manufactures of Bengal (Calcutta, 1903), p. 4.Google Scholar

3 For examples, Birdwood, G. C., The Industrial Arts of India, Part II (London, 1887)Google Scholar, and Mukharji, T. N., Arts and Manufactures of India, (Calcutta, 1888).Google Scholar

4 Hoey, William, A Monograph on Trade and Manufactures in Northern India (Lucknow: 1880).Google Scholar

5 Central Provinces and Berar, Report of the Industrial Survey of the Central Provinces and Berar (Nagpur, 1908–1909), p. 82;Google ScholarMukharji, A Monograph, pp. 12–13, 15. Interestingly, if prosperity induced use of metals, famines did the reverse. Census, 1901, Bombay, Report (I) attributed a decline in brass and increased use of earthenware to the 1896 famine.Google Scholar

6 Including ‘a general growth in smoking habit’ in and around the major cities. However, ‘at the end of the decade [1920s] came the boycott of imported cigarettes and the Beedi came into its own’, Census, India, 1931, Report (I), p. 291.Google Scholar

7 United Provinces, Industrial Survey of the United Provinces (Allahabad, 1924), Benares district, p. 23.Google Scholar

8 The exhibition referred to is probably the British Empire Exhibition, 1924. United Provinces, Industrial Survey, Moradabad, p. 21;Google ScholarCensus, 1931, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, Report (I), p. 425.Google Scholar

9 Ganguli, G. D., ‘The Art Industries of the United Provinces’, Report of the First Indian Industrial Conference (Benares, 1905) (Allahabad, 1906), p. 346.Google Scholar

10 Part of this can be accounted for by a general decline in employment, probably an after-effect of the epidemic, and by raw material shortages during the war.Google Scholar

11 For instances either way, see Chatterjee, A. C., Notes on the Industries of the United Provinces (Allahabad, 1908), p. 117;Google ScholarShah, P. G., ‘The Copper and Brass Industries in India’, Report of the Eighth Indian Industrial Conference, Bankipore, 1912 (Amraoti, 1913), pp. 22, 56;Google Scholar Bengal, Report on the Survey of Cottage Industries of Bengal (Calcutta, 1929), p. 35.Google Scholar

12 Census, 1901, Bombay, Report(I).Google Scholar

13 Joshi, N. M., Urban Handicrafts of the Bombay-Deccan (Poona, 1936), p. 56.Google Scholar

14 Shah, , ‘The Copper and Brass Industries’, p. 28.Google Scholar

15 Ibid., p. 53; Trivedi, A. B., Post-war Gujarat (Bombay, 1949), p. 165.Google Scholar

16 Central Provinces and Berar, Report of the Industrial Survey, p. 82.Google Scholar

17 ‘Of late years the manufacture of many new articles in brass has commenced in and around Calcutta to meet the new wants created…among the people’, Mukharji, A Monograph, pp. 12–13.Google Scholar

18 Bengal, Report on the Survey, p. 83.Google Scholar

19 For example, use of wooden moulds in castings implied mass production and a specialized branch of carpenters who did this work. In the entire period, moulds were of wax in Bengal, but of wood in Moradabad.Google Scholar

20 Shah, , ‘Copper and Brass Industries’, p. 57.Google Scholar

21 United Province, Industrial Survey, Mirzapur, p. 12Google Scholar, some of this trade still went in carts, the railways being unpopular as they ‘ruthlessly knocked about’ the vessels. See also, United Provinces, ibid., Farrukhabad and Moradabad.

22 For 1924, United Provinces, Industrial Survey furnishes value of output, number of workers and cost of brass sheets. For 1945, workers and weight are available from Chaturvedi, V. P., Moradabad mein Pital ke Bartanon ka Gharelu Udyog wa Vyavasaya [The Cottage Industry and Trade in Moradabad Brass-ware] (Allahabad, 1950).Google Scholar This yields a per worker weight of raw metal used that increased about 2.9 times in 20 years. If this appears to be an overestimate, the possible sources could be the following. Chaturvedi’s figures consist of scrap imported into the city as recorded in the dealer accounts, and of number of workers. Relative to conventional figures, Chaturvedi scaled up scrap, and scaled down workers. Scraps were only partly imported by the railways, so there was a guess involved. But even in the most conservative case, there would remain a large increase in per worker output.

23 In 1924, there were 300 factories of 8–10 workers each. In the late-1970s, there were 2136 factories, of which 273 were registered under Factories Act, with about 19 workers each.Google Scholar

24 Placing the most skilled artisans, the engravers who usually worked at home or in jointly rented sheds, in the same class as the smaller factory owners. Wage-comparisons, average or by kinds of artisans, are possible between United Provinces brass towns in 1907, and in the 1920s; between the Deccan and Moradabad in the 1950s; and between Bengal and United Provinces in the first decade of the century.Google Scholar

25 Shah, , ‘Copper and Brass Industries’, p. 42.Google Scholar

26 Imperial Gazetteer, Indian Empire (Economic) (Oxford, 1909), p. 238;Google ScholarShah, , ‘Copper and Brass Industries’, p. 54.Google Scholar

27 Shah, ibid., p. 47.

28 Mensinkai, S. S., A Survey of Handicrafts in Eight Districts of the Mysore State (Dharwar, 1961), p. 10.Google Scholar

29 Engraved cutlery is one example, Imperial Gazetteer, p. 238;Google ScholarIn hammered ware, there was a constant change of product, Chaturvedi, The Cottage Industry, p. 23;Google Scholar firms switching from tin-plating to nickel or silver were also ‘taking up new lines of manufacture’, United Provinces, Report of the Director of Industries (Allahabad, 1922–1923), p. 19.Google Scholar

30 Chatterjee, , Notes on the Industries, pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

31 Imperial Gazetteer, p. 238.Google Scholar

32 Census, 1931, United Provinces (I), p. 425.Google Scholar

33 United Provinces, Industrial Survey, Benares p. 24.Google Scholar

34 Ganguli, G. D. cited in Central Provinces, Industrial Survey, p. 85;Google Scholar also, ‘with no better guide to regulate their skill other than the fancy of their numerous customers, the brass workers of the present day have adopted models, which in point of elegance and purity of design, can hardly bear comparison with the art product of former years’, Ganguli, ‘The Art Industries’, p.347.Google Scholar

35 Indian Industrial Commission, Evidence (I), United Provinces, p. 194.Google Scholar

36 Khan, Mohammad Yaar, see Chaturvedi, The Cottage Industry, p. 56.Google Scholar

37 On the decline of the industry in Lucknow with the rise of Moradabad, see Bhattacharya, A., ‘A Survey of the Small Urban Industries of Lucknow’, Provincial Banking Enquiry Committee, United Provinces, vol. 2, Evidence (Allahabad, 1930), pp. 404–5.Google Scholar

38 Chatterjee, , Notes on Industries, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

39 Thus, ‘whenever a cottage industry is in the hands of a particular caste, it easily assimilates itself to the workshop system’, Provincial Banking Enquiry Commission, United Provinces, Report, p. 252. Caste, though utilizable this way, was neither a necessary nor a sufficient precondition for workshops to develop.Google Scholar

40 Chatterjee, , Notes on Industries, p. 121.Google Scholar

41 See Mensinkai on dealers in the Deccan, A Survey of Handicrafts.Google Scholar

42 United Provinces, Industrial Survey, Moradabad, p. 20.Google Scholar

43 Banking Enquiry, United Provinces, Evidence (II), p. 132. In Moradabad, big dealers allowed their long-time employees to become agents. Some remained paid employees, and some became full-fledged merchants, Chaturvedi, The Cottage Industry.Google Scholar

44 Joshi, , Urban Handicrafts, p. 123.Google Scholar

45 Choksey, R. D., Economic Life in the Bombay-Deccan (1918–1939) (Bombay, 1955), p. 189.Google Scholar

46 In 1907, ‘there is …a great deal of competition among the dealers and profits are cut very fine’, Chatterjee, Notes on Industries, p. 125;Google Scholar on flexible contracts, Singh, Baljit, The Economics of Small-scale Industries. A Case Study of Small-scale Industrial Establishments of Moradabad (Bombay, 1961), p. 20.Google Scholar

47 Bengal, Report on the Survey, pp. 31–3, 56.Google Scholar

48 On Karkhanadars trading (Mirzapur), see Chatterjee, Notes on Industries, p. 121;Google Scholar on factories belonging to ‘men of substance who were not themselves workmen’, Chatterjee, ibid., p. 120, Moradabad engraving, and p. 122, Benares. In the early 1930s, karkhanas in Poona were owned by ‘rich capitalists’, who independent. Joshi, Urban Handicrafts, p. 124.Google Scholar

49 In the 1960s, a section of Moradabad dealers were called karkhanadars, All India Handicrafts Board, Report on the Survey of the Brassware Industry at Moradabad (New Delhi, 1964).Google Scholar

50 Banking Enquiry, United Provinces, Evidence (II), p. 131.Google Scholar

51 Chatterjee, , Notes on Industries, p. 120;Google ScholarChaturvedi, The Cottage Industry, p. 27;Google ScholarSingh, The Economics of Small-scale, p. 21.Google Scholar

52 United Provinces, Industrial Survey, Moradabad, p. 22.Google Scholar

53 Chaturvedi, , The Cottage Industry, p. 25;Google ScholarAll India Handicrafts Board, Report on the Survey, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

54 For example, where the vessel was lacquered, the lathe needed to move slowly, controllably, and the assistant turning the lathe had to have knowledge of the master-craftsman's techniques.Google Scholar

55 ‘A leading brass-dealer of Moradabad informed me that he was making arrangements to set up a die-press in that town’, Chatterjee, Notes on Industries, p. 125.Google Scholar

56 Singh, , The Economics of Small-scale, p. 54.Google Scholar

57 Ibid.

58 Interpreting data supplied in ibid.

59 Chaturvedi, , The Cottage Industry, and United Provinces, Industrial Survey, Moradabad.Google Scholar

60 On Punjab, Haryana District Gazetteer, Ambala (Chandigarh, 1984), p. 129;Google ScholarPunjab, Report on Industrial Survey of Punjab (Chandigarh, 1960), pp. 86–7;Google Scholaron Bombay, Shah, ‘Copper and Brass Industries’, p. 53;Google Scholar Bombay, Report of the Bombay Economic and Industrial Survey Committee, 1938–1940 (Bombay, 1940), p. 74;Google Scholar on Calcutta, Mukharji, A Monograph, pp. 12–13;Google Scholar on Poona, , Gazetteer of the Bombay State, Poona (Bombay, 1954), pp. 270–2.Google Scholar

61 Joshi, , Urban Handicrafts, p. 124.Google Scholar

62 Chatterjee, , Notes on Industries, p. 119.Google Scholar

63 Chaturvedi, , The Cottage Industry, p. 27.Google Scholar

64 Joshi, , Urban Handicrafts, p. 125.Google Scholar

65 Bengal, Report on the Survey, pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

66 Bhattacharya, , ‘A Survey’, p. 402.Google Scholar

67 Ibid., p. 404.

68 Banking Enquiry, United Provinces, Evidence (II), p. 131.Google Scholar

69 Choksey, , The Economic Life, p. 189.Google Scholar

70 Bhattacharya, , ‘A Survey’, p. 404.Google Scholar

71 Census, 1961, Uttar Pradesh, Handicrafts Survey Monographs (VII-A), Brass and Copper Industry in Uttar Pradesh.Google Scholar

72 India (Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation), Report on the Working and Living Conditions of Workers in the Metalware Industry at Moradabad (New Delhi, 1982), tables. The study contains fascinating information on the levels of living of Moradabad brass workers. By income, wealth and welfare indices, they were placed somewhere in the middle classes of the town. It would seem, however, that over the preceding decades, the workers' distance from the work-place had increased, reflecting general urban growth.Google Scholar

73 Mensinkai, , A Survey of Handicrafts, p. 89.Google Scholar

74 Census, 1961, Brass and Copper, p. 17.Google Scholar